



^^a>«b^' -^ 



Z '<^V 



«>t. c^ "j^m^^^ '^^ <i 


















^oV^ 







%-^"%o' v^\/ "°*'^^*/ V 











V ^ ' • o- O. 





•V^\t.^ °**^-'/ %'''^''.^' o^ '.-. 



: -> 



.0^ c".!'*- c 



..0^ 



















^ 


v\^ 






^:"S,* 






,s 


'-f^^ 






-,p 






■>-'i 








c^^ 


,'' 








^ - 




-^ 




»(?■•, 








■a.* ^ 



O 






.-'b' 



•^'' 







> 






''".■%•'. 




■V 












A^ 


■' ^^. 




/ 




,.% ^% 


^o 




,7- - 


?.o 


% 








.,V" 


» o ^ «,^ 






^^, 


.** 



•i^> -■<{• 






o 



^ 



o 



..S.-V ^cP 












-n/'O^ 



c" 






'•>.^^' 









"b K 






.•^^■ 



-^^ 












^'^' '^ ^ ^-^^V^^ ./ %_ 



y^- 












!^ 









4^ <*^ 'O, t * 



■^^^ 



.^1 <=. 






^C 



'U^, 






'^^ 



^^-g- 









.,^ "^ V- 


t ' ' 






" o » "^^ 




"*^^ 


0<' 


f -o/ :S 


>vo 


<ci 


■?<. 


: :P'^^ :■■ 






4 \ . 1 • o . v% .n^ . > * 



SPEECH 




PENDING MEASURES OF COMPROMISE. 



DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OP THE UNITED STATES, MAY 21, 1850. 

The Senate having under consideration the special order — being the bill to admit Cali- 
fornia as a State into the Union, to establish territorial governments for Utah and 
Nev? Mexico, and making proposals to Texas for the establishment of her western 
and northern boundaries — Mr. SOULE said ; 

I moved an adjournment on yesterday to obtain the privilege of the floor, that I might 
avail myself of the first moment of convalescence which has been allowed me since the 
beginning of the session, and lay before the Senate and before the country some brief 
remarks upon the matters under debate, and more particularly, on the 10th section of the 
bill, which the Amendment proposed by the honorable Senator from Missouri aims to 
modify. 

I shall not attempt, nor I hope will it be expected on this occasion, to deliver a set 
speech. I am neither prepared for it, nor in the condition of health which admits of 
it ; nor would it be proper under the limited issues now under debate. On the main 
question, — the admission of California into the Union as she is, — a wider range of debate 
will be admissible ; and when that matter comes up, I may have to trouble the Senate 
again, should my health be spared. 

The questions of controversy between the North and the South may be reduced to 
four, all arising out of claims of constitutional rights asserted and insisted upon on one 
side, and directly or laterally assailed on the other. 

The First relates to the claim set up by the South to have an equal share in the Terri- 
tories acquired from Mexico. 

The Second grows out of the denial on the part of the South of any right in Con- 
gress to interfere with slavery in the District of Columbia, or to arrest or obstruct the 
slave trade between the States. 

^ The Third refers to the right of the slaveholding States to have the provisions of the 
Constitution directing and commanding the delivery of fugitive slaves effectively enforced. 
^ The Fourth embraces the boundary rights of Texas, as defined in her constitution and 
laws, as secured to her under the compact of annexation, and quieted of all Mexican 
counter-claims under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo;— a question more immediately 
affecting the rights of sovereignty and eminent domain of Texas, certainly, yet present- 
ing many obvious features as well as principles which render its solution of vast mo- 
ment to the interests of the South. 

Reversing the order in which I have mentioned these points of the controversy between 
the two great sections, let us see how they have been disposed of in the scheme of compro- 
mise reported by the committee. 

The Fourth comes back to the Senate with Texas shorn of her sovereignty over not 
only 5^ degrees north of the line of 30 deg. 30 min., and stretching to the southern 
boundary line of Oregon, upon the 42 deg. of north latitude, but embracing no less 
fhan 21 degrees of the slave territory of Texas, situate south of 3G deg. 30 min., 

Price $1,00 per hundred^ 



73891 . '^ 



which, if the frank expos6 of the honorable chairman (Mr. Clay) is to be Crusted for 
the views of the committee, arc to be converted inio free Territories by the op. ration of 
the Mexican law, abolishing whatever slavery may exist there now, and prohiI)iting ilg 
introduction hereafter, in derogation n t only of the compact between the United States 
and Texas, in which the South had large interests at stake, but destructive f>f the vested 
interests, under the compact, of the people dwelling within the limits of the surrendered 
territory;— an act of power to which neither the United States nor Texas is competent, 
without their consent. 

The Tiiinn returns here with provisions so contrived that, far from remedying the 
evil of which the South complains, they most obviously embarrass and obstruct the 
exercise of her acknowledged rights ; so that any one, unaware of the terms of 
the resolution of the honorable Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) upon this sub- 
ject, must have concluded that the evil complained of was not any delinquency 
on the part of the Free States, in complying with a most explicit provision of the Con- 
stitution, but, on 'he contrary, that the main evil was the abuse, on the part of the 
Southerners, in claiming/rpe n.m as slaves, in the exercise of the rii^'hts of reclama- 
tion of tugitives from service in the Free States ; for, the only provisions reported are 
anch as would greatly embarrass, delay, and add to the expenses of reclamation, to say 
nothing of the alienee of all constitutional authority in this government to e.xercise ju- 
risdiction over the State Courts of the South, enlarge their jurisdiction, assign thent 
new duties, or require at their hands records of matters to which their functions do not 
pertain, and laying aside the ab.=ence of all constitutional authority in this government — 
{beyond and aft(r enforcing the extradition of fugitive slaves)— of exercising a federal 
jurifidictiiirt tvilkin the slave States upon the subject of slavery, under the gui.se of s 
penal bond puyabk. to the. United States, conditioned for the performance of those 
duties of humanity and justice, to which every one of the slave St.Ues have bound 
themselves and ther courts by their own State laws, without the promptings orencroach- 
ments of these federal requisitions. 

The Sncosn comes back with a virtual surrcnJer to Congress of thfit very power and 
jurisdiction over slavery in the District wliich the South have heretofore* resisisted so 
strenuously, and which there is every reason to believe she will resist to the last ; for if, 
under the guise of breaking up as nuisances the public slave marts, (which are mere 
ntatters of municipal regulation,) Congress may prohibit slaves from comint,' here, and 
may emancipnte them when they do come, (though brousht for the honorable purpose of 
being sold to pay slaveholders' just debts,) is it not an obvious assertion of a power to 
emancipate them, if brouglit here for any other purpose ^ and no one who admits the 
power of Congress to legislate against this species of property which may be brought 
here for the payment of debts, and to convert (without a breach of faith towards the ce- 
ding States) this District into/rfc territory, so far as it relates to slav&s brought here 
for sale by their owners, can reasonably dispute thereafter either the power or breach of 
good faith involved in making it free territory altogether! 

Having once more reached the First, (involving the points in debate,)! remark 
that, after surrendering the unconditional admission of California as a ^tate, which 
an honorable Senator, now in my view, (Mr. Footk), but a few days ago held 
to bo a sufficient cause of active resistance on the part of the South, if admitted 
alone:— after surrendering, by that unconditional admission, every inch of ."^oil in the new 
Territories suaceptible of slave settlement and culture — the committee tenders to the 
South, as the only boon in which she is to seek a compensation for all the sacrifices ex- 
torted from her, the section before me which is the 10th of the bill under debate. 

Such being the state of the question now presented to the Senate, I propose to 
inquire into the nature, extent, and value of that compensation thus profTered to the 
South, as satisfaction for her grievances and in security of her rights. 

The section reads as follows : 

"And be it further enacted. That the legislative power of the Terrtory shall extend 
to a'l rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United States 
and with the provisions of this act ; but no law shall be passed interfering with the pri- 
mary disposition of the soil, 7iortn respect to African slavery ,- no tax shall be imposed 
apon the property of the United States, nor shall the lands or other property of non- 
residents be taxed higher than the lands of other property of residents. All the laws 



piSsseihy the le^hhlive Assemhly and Governor shuilht suhmithd io ike Congress 
■af the United States, und if disapproved shall be null and of no effid. 

What is it that this*section concedes to the South ? Why, nothing but the i^tatu 
quo in the Territories, after the relinquishment, required in prior sections of the bill, of 
ill pretensions to any portion of the vast and important country embraced within the 
boundaries of California, and south of 06 deg. 30 min.— the statu quo, with an un- 
qualified inhibition to the territorial Legislature from passinji any law in respect to Afri- 
ean slavery ; and thus, besides the solemn assertion repeated time and again, here and 
elsewhere,' that the Mexican law prevails in the Territories, and that by its provisions 
slavery is prohibited there, the committee gives the North the still further assurance that 
this statu quo shall never be disturbed by any law which the territorial Legislature 
might think proper to pass for the protection of the just rights of slaveholders, either mi- 
gra'ting to the Territories with their slaves, or passing through them, only ; and hence, 
as to slavery, the Mexican laws are not only to continue in force there, but to be para- 
mouitt and irrcpealable by the local Legislature! 

For, let me remark here that, should the ground assumed the other day by the honor- 
able Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Footk) be a sound one, (as I hold it to be,) that the 
Jaws of Mexico except as to the c vil rights of the Mexican American citizens, have been 
superceded by force of the Con^tittition of the United Status, guarantying to slaveholders 
their rights of property in slaves wherever they may be, if out of the jurisdiction of a free 
State, and even there, if they are fugitives from service — even admitting that such an opin- 
ion should prevail — yst is it not perceived that these rights would be sterilized to very bar- 
renness while this section stands as it is ? — it being impossible under its provisions 
to obtain any prdteciion for them either from Congress or the local. Legislature ? 
If there neither be law nor power to pass any in respect to African slavery — if two or 
more persons there are claiming the same slave, how is the right of ownership to be ad- 
judicated between them ? If a slave runs away, where is there an authority for his re- 
capture and subjection to service ? If he is kidnapped and carried off, how is his recovery 
to he had f' If he strikes and woun<ls his owner, whence is the owners redress ? He might, 
indeed, be prosecuted, and fined, and imprisoned lor the breach of the peace ; but that 
•would be a rather onerous lejiaration ; for, the owne'r would have to pay the fine and 
«osts from his own pocket, and lose the slave's services while the confinement lasted ! 
What, then, becomes of all the boasted and lauded forbearance of this compromise in 
■5aving the South's equality, and sparing her the flagrant injustice and galling degrada- 
tion of the Wilr/w' Proviso ? 

We all know thai we do not understand this 10th section alike — we know that its im- 
port in different minds amounts to absolute antagonism. Every hour of this debate 
makes Ihis most obvious to all who hear it. If we are not deceiving one another, 
•we are deceiving our const ilue/its. A Southerner reading this section, without any 
T5pecial care as to its precise import, 'v^'ould l)e aptto conclude that this was well enough — 
that there was no Wilniot Proviso lurknig in this language ;; and that it fairly meant 
that in the opinions of northerners, southerners might safely take their slaves there, and 
that northerners admitted their obligation to receive the Territories into the Union as 
Free States, or as Slave States, as the people residing in them should declare in their con- 
stitution. 

We well know that the Northern gentlemen here do not understand this section in 
any such way ; for, if they did, the South would have nothing more to ask in reference to 
these Territories. Unhappily it is not so. We all know it is not so, and that a proviso 
to this section, declaratory of such a meaning, would hardly command in this chamber 
live northern votes. I may put this matter to tlie test by offering such a proviso myself 
before this subject is done with, should no other gentleman do so. If, therefore, the 
Senate sustains the southern construction by adopting that proviso, then we can cheer- 
fully and hopefully progress with the other provisions of the bill. But if that proviso 
be voted down, you can »io more make that bill acceptable to the South than if you should 
ingraft tlie Wilinot Proviso upon it in so many words. 

But I am met by the remark tlvat the amendment proposed by the honorable ^-enator 
from Mississippi, (Mr. Davis,) involves a surrender of the doctrine of non-interference 
heretofore so strenuously advocaicd by the friends of the South. If that be so, I vvishat 
once to be classed among those who feel disposed to vote it down. But I am cuiious to 
know how that amendment giv<,'s up the doctrir^c of non-luterftrcnce. I never could 



understand that doc(rine as going beyond the power, either in the Territorial Legislature 
or in Congress, to establish or abolish slavery ; and surely the amendment imports na 
such power ■ and by no dexterity of interpretations therefore, can it be construed into 
an abandonment of the doctrine of iion-interfirejice. It were idle to tell us that the free 
and the slave States possess equal and common rights under the Constitution, while the 
North refuses the South that protection to her property in a Territory of the Unioii 
which she afl'oRls to her own prr.perty there. 

Rights unprotected become nonentities, and, losing all value, are undeserving of a 
name ; and far from viewing the amendment- as an abandonment of the doctrine, I con- 
ceive that it was.deyised as a shield to save it from utter annihilation, through that hurt- 
ful and disastrous nonaction which the 10th section enjoins upon the Territorial Legis- 
lature, 

The section of the bill now under consideration is the hopeful progeny of the most 
remarkable and exceptionable of all the original resolutions of the honorable Senator irom 
Kentucky. That resolution was as follows : 

•' 2d. Resolved, That ns f-lavery does not exist bylaw, and is not likely to be intro- 
duced into any of the Territories acquired by the United States from tlie republic of 
Mexico, it is inexpedient for Congress to provide by law either for its introJuction into 
or exclusion from any part of said Territory ; and that appropriate territorial govern- 
ments ought to be established by Congress in all of said territory not assigned as the 
boundaries of the proposed State of California, wfhout the adoption of any restriction 
or condition on the subject of slavtry." 

Every one remembers what outbreaks of dissatisfaction were pouring' in upon us from 
time to time, from all parts of the South, as the proffered concessions of this resolution 
were spread afar over her di.-tant borders. It may be said, without a word of exaggera- 
tion, that it aroused universal opposition at the South, and that even the honored name 
of its distinguished draughtsman could not save it from the deepest and heaviest re- 
proaches ; and I need not speak of the pointedly hostile reception it met with in thi& 
chamber. Now, the obnoxious features of this resolution plainly were, that it asserted, 
by irresistible implication, that the Mexican laws prohibiting slavery remained in active 
force in the ceded Territories, and shut out our people migrating thitherwards from the 
protection of that noble Constitution which had accompanied our flag and our armies 
through the heart and through the extremities of Mexico ; and our southerners could not 
reconcile themselves to so striking an absurdity, as that the same Constitution which had 
accompanied and protected our s^ea craft and their crews and properties to every clime, 
and through every sea ; which all the hostile forces of Mexico could not sever from our 
citizen soldiers there, should prove incompetent to protect us against the power and 
laws of these same Mexicans, when peace has come and made us friends ; when a 
treaty has come and made us brethren ; when a cession has come and made their terri- 
tory vurs; and that after it has becime as much theirs as ours, our citizens may go upon 
Mexican territory and take the Constitution along with ibem while it remains a foreign 
domain, but the moment it becomes ours, the Constitution is banished thence, and if 
our citizens migiate thither, they must leave its privileges and its protection behind them! 

Quite as exceptionable a feature of the resolution, and even more freely condemned,^ 
was the phrase that it was inexped'ent to impose any restriction upon the Territories, 
because the Mexican laws had already imposed that restriction, and that those laws were 
still in force ; which, of course, involved the obnoxious conces^on, wliich tbe South 
had resisted strenously and ununiniously from the threshold, that there was a power in 
Congress to impose the Wilmot I'roviso; and such an acknowledgment coming from * 
Southerner, and tendered on behalf of the South, was not only a public repudiation of 
all she had often and deliberately asserted to the contrary, but it was an avowal, coupled 
with a representation of a change of opinion and of constitutional scruples, which, in 
point of fact, was palpably, yet most injuriously untrue ! 

Such, then, being the reception which this resolution had met with from southern 
Senators and from the South, it was hoped, as it was expected, that when it came back 
to the Senate from the committee, its obnoxious features would have been obliiorated, 
and conciliatory modifications have been substituted therefor. Has this been done ^ 
Nothing of the sort. It is not, indeed, what it was ; but the change, far from improv- 
ing it, has, both, increased and enhanced the objections which existed before. It has vt- 



■zrsoied them ; for whereas the resolution imposed the restraint upon Cons^ss not to pass 
any anti-slavery restrictions upon the Territories, the bill only imposes the restraint upon 
Territorial Legislatures, leaving Ci>)igress free to do just as it pleases, and reserving to 
itself a veto power over these Legislatures, which would not only insure the nullity of 
any acts of theirs countenancing or tolerating, in any way, the existence of slavery there, 
but even any conservative provisions which might afford it a mere police protection. . It 
has enhanced the objection \ for the bill not only does not repudiate the existence and 
supremacy of the Mexican laws prohibiting slavery, but it has beensustaned by a spfech 
from the honorable chairman, asserting that existence and supremacy in the most impos- 
ing and unequivocal terms. Moreover, the bill, when introduced into" the Senate, was 
accompanied by an elaborate Report from the committee, which, like the opinions 
of courts which accompany their judgments, carries with it scarcely less weight than 
the measures it recommends. Now, the Report represents that the Wilmoi proviso 
is not imposed in the hill, hecaitse the committee thought it was unnecessary in this 
instance. It does, indeed, declare that " the true principle which ought to regulate" the 
action of Congress, in forming territorial governments for each newlj- acquired domain, is 
to refrain from all legislation on the subject in the territory acquired, so long as it retains 
the territorial form of government, &c. This is very good doctrine, certainlv : and no 
Southerner will dissent from itj but the asseition of the "principle which ought to 
regulate "' plainly admits the existence of a power to regulate and which would regulate 
as Congress thought proper, whenever the majority deemed it useful to do so. While 
that portion of the bill relating to Territories remains as it is, it is not possible that I 
can aflbrd it my sanction and support ; for I assert, what is beyond the power of refuta- 
tion, and what it behooves every Southern i^enator deeply to ponder on, that no Senator 
can ca-t his tcte for this bill as it />, without explicitly adndtting, through an irresis-' 
able implimtion, a power in Congress to pass the Wi/mot proviso .' 

I would now call the attention of the Senate to so much of the remarkable speech of 
the honorable Senator from Kentucky (who opened the debate upon the Report and till of 
the committee) as relates to the Mexican laws prohibiting slavery, remaining in force in 
the ceded Territories. Wiih the Senator's usual manliness and candor, he avowed that, 
unless he had been convinced that the Mexican laws prevailed in the Territories, and that, 
by virtue thereof, slavery had no existence or protection there, he could never have 
brought himself to cast his vote in favor of the Territorial bill as it stands. He went fur- 
th€r; and I ask the dehberate attention of Southern Senators to the prophetic warnings 
he put forth. He not only announced his own conviction that these laws remained in 
force there, but, while we were flattering ourselves that quite a diiferent conviction might 
be wrought in due season in a certain quarter, he ventured the imposing announcement 
that a vast majority, not only of the people, but of the jurists of these States, concur 
with him in opinion upon that question. Well, sir, if that be the case — if it is gravely 
announced by one whose own opinions always carry with them so much weight and 
wield so much influence, that a vast majority of the jurists of the country are already 
with him upon this important constitutional and legal issue — how can the honorable 
Senator ask us of the ^'outh to vote with him, and in the way of a compromise, too, 
implying an acknowledgment of the present existence there, (and if not there, a power 
in Congress to put them there,) of prohibitory laws against the institution of slavery, 
which are absolutely odious to us, and which the tenth section of ihis bill not only re- 
cognises, but renders irrepealahle ' I ask every Southerner who listens to me, how he 
can vote for this bill without virtually conceding a power in Congress to impose the Wil- 
niot pr: viso upon these Territories, and upon all Territories, whenever it chooses to do 
so ? And, indeed, as this section gives to Congress an absolute veto upon all laws 
which may emanate from the Territorial Legislature, while it does not impose any re- 
straints whatever upon itself^ what assurance is given, what security have we, that even 
if we yield up our objections to the unexampled sacrifices which this bill exacts of us, 
under the promptings of a love of Union and a desire of Peace, and consent to its pas- 
sage — I repeat, what security have we, what obstacle would be interposed against the 
introduction, on the next day, and the final passage of a bill imposing the Vt'il mot pro- 
viso upon these Territories ? Nevertheless, we are told that this bill is to be the panacea 
for all the disturbing evils that annoy us ; and lo ! the very section we are debating puts 
and leaves every thmg in doubt, every thing in danger, everything, yes, verily, every 
t\\mg — in darkness! Only behold ! Here is the eminent chairman of the committee pro- 



claiming from his place in the Senate that these Mexican laws arc now in force in the Ter- 
ritories; and yet here is the honorable Senator from Mississippi, (Mr. Foote,) on whose- 
motion this committee was raised, and a staunch supporter of the measures it reconnnends, 
declaring from his place that these laws have heen superseded by the Constitution of the 
United States, and that slavery cannjt be inhibited from going there ! Yet, while these 
opposite and clashing interpretations arc given to the same features of the same section of 
tlie same l)ili, by its own friends, we are urged alike by both Senators to give it our sup- 
port, and without reference at all to the obscurities which mask its meaning from its own 
champions ! Under whose banner shall we confront the Provisoids ? Under which 
construction shall wc wage the war ? Is it for Southern rights or Southern wrongs ? 

Great, sir, as is my resp.'ct for the profound learning and my admiration for the ge-- 
nius of thfl honorable Senator from Kentucky, I cannot concur with him in his conclu- 
sions upon this point, and I shall range myself rather under the banner of the distinguished 
Senator from Georgia, (Mr. Beuuien,) whose adverse positions, if they have ever been 
met, have never in my judgment, been overthrown. Tlifse p isitions have derived addi- 
tional force from that clause in the Mexican Constitution of 1 843, which was first brought 
to the notice of the Senate by the honorable Senator from Missouri, (Mr. Ben ro.\,) and 
which conclusively establishes that African slavery in Mexico was at that time abolished. 
As early as 1829, the abolition of slavery in Mexico was attempted to be established by 
the decree of the Dictator GueiTcro ; but that he had failed in the accomplishment of 
wLat he had aimed at, through a want of binding force in that decree, seems obvious 
enough from the act of 1837 of the Mexican Congress adopting Guerrero's language. 
but repudiating his authority. That law itself failed of execution through the failure of 
the government to fulfil tlie terms of manumission it had imposed upon itself, as well as 
from the want oi authority to enact it ; and the provision in the (Jonstitution of 18 1.3 
may be safely referred to, with respect both to the law and tlie fact of that failure, and 
in proof that, in Mexican appreciation, nothing short of the sovereign power of the peo- 
ple was competent to the abolition of the institution of slavery. 

The slave trade, as to Mexico, was abolished in 1824 ; and I refer to the fact that it 
may be borne in mind, that whether slavery or the slave trade had to be abolished, the 
better and controlling opinion was that the power to abolish either must be derived, from 
the Sovereign Authority, and through the means of a Convention of the people, or (what 
imports the same thing,) a ConAiluent Congress like that of 18"M, which abolished the 
slave trade. 

From all this it follows conclusively, that these questions, so far as we can judge from 
the elements we may find in the constitutional history of the country, were considered 
by Mexico as belonging to that class of general legislation which was so appropriately 
defined by the honorable Senator from Georgia (Mr. BKuniEN) as public or political 
legislation. That they thought so is most obvious, from the facta connected with the 
two decrees which I have just referred to. Notwithstanding all this, it is insisted that 
the Mexican political law survived the cession of the country, and now remains para- 
mount and supreme in the ceded Territory, to the exclusion of our own! In other 
words — for such is the absurdity — that the Mexican Constitution follows its citizens even 
in a foreign country, and dwells with them, and shields and protects them there — so 
long as they remain ; while the American Constitution, impotent for such a ser- 
vice, neither proi/ctn thf/n in their own country, nor abides with them there. Yes ; 
for, whenever and wherever the American Constitution comes in conflict with the 
Mexican Constitution, even upon territory which the blood and treasure of this 
country has made irrevocably ours, it must withdraw from the pre.sence, and sub- 
rait to the supremacy of a Foreign Supreme law, regulating and controlling the 
rights of American citizens upon American soil.' I know of no process by which 
S'enators can reach to these strange conclusions, without assuming the still stranger hy- 
pothesis that the clause in the .Mexican Constitution of IH43, abolishing and prohibiting 
slavery, was adopted into ours by force of the treaty of cession, which says nothing about 
il\ and hence that the Constitution of the United States has been practically and quietly 
amended, without the assent or knowledge of any of the States whose interests are to be 
so radically improved or impaired by the change. 

I have listened attentively to all that has been said on this subject, throughout thi.* 
protracted debate, in supi)ort of this political paradox. A few considerations, which 1 
had supposed, were so natural and obvious that they would have occurred to any oue, and 



■have proved quite decisive of such an issue, seem to have escaped its advocates altogeliier, 
and I beg to bring them to the notice of honomble Senators. 

When our conquering armies entered Mexico at various points, nobody doubts, I ima- 
gine, but that the Constitution of the United States, and their laws, too, so far as they 
were applicable to American citizens, inter se, accompanied and abided with thein during 
their sojourn there. Now, what became of the Mexican laws and constitution during the 
invasion, and while the American armies took and held possession? The law of nations 
would pithily respond with the Leges silent inter urtna, which attests the presence of the 
conqueror and |:roclaims the supremacy of military domination. But the superior humani-^ 
ty and characteristic forbearance of American invaders left them in the free enjoyment of' 
those civil aad religious rights and privileges which the Treaty of Peace afterwards, more 
formally, but just to this extent and no more, guarantied and assured to them; and so 
things remained during the hostile occupation. As to all public, political rights, whe- 
ther derived from the Mexican law or the higher Sovereign Authority of her Consti- 
tution, they were, of course, and of necessity, superseded while that occupation lasted. 
When, on the return of peace, the American army retired, then, and simultaneously 
with it, the Mexican laws and Constitution resumed their polifical fuvrtions, and just 
as they were before the invasion, in all such parts of Mexico as were not embraced in 
the Treaty of Cession. That is clear. But what were the legal consequences of the ces- 
sion in the ceded Territories ? The jiolitical laws of Mexico, as well as her national 
constitution, were, and always had been, from the time of the invasion, and up to the 
very moment of the ratification of the Treaty, suspended. Now, I submit trustingly to 
the candor of honorable Senators to fix the point of time thereafter when, in their judg- 
ment, those laws and that constitution were revived within those localities and in tliat 
jurisdiction, and the Constitution of the United States withdrawn from tlicre, to give 
place to the Cunstitution of Mexico? If revived, how? and by whom? The whole his- 
tory of the negotiation, as well as the Treaty of cession itself, shows conclusively, aa I 
shall presently attempt to show, that, although Mexico explicitly asked the revival of so 
much of her laws and constitution as prohibited slavery, yet the United St;Ues as ex- 
plictly refused it. None knew better than the Mexican commissioners, that if the con- 
stitutional interdiction of slavery inured to the inhabitants of the ceded Territories as a 
civil right, there could be no need of making a formal application to secure it to them; 
and none knew belter than the American commissioner, or, at least, this Senate, which 
revised his proceedings and modified the treaty, that if it was a civil right, it could not be 
refused them. The Treaty of Cession has not revived this provision of the constitution 
cf 18t3: not in terms, certainly, for it says nothing about it; and we cannot conclude 
otherwise than that the United States have not revived and would not revive it, and that 
Mexico did not and could not revive it. This will l)e made manifest hereafter. If the 
revival took place at all, it must have taken place under some technical construction or 
legal corollary, of which neither party to the treaty seems to have had knowledge, or to 
have taken cognizance at the time. How could this be? The Peace and the Ces- 
sion were simultaneous acts; not a moment of time elapsed between them. Mexico 
could not have acquired a fresh jurisdiction in these Territories in the very instant in 
which they were lost to her and by her consent. This would have been a legal anach- 
ronism of which there is no example, and to be matched only by the political absurditj 
of one nation ceding to another a portion of its national domain, and yet retaining juris- 
diction over it ! * 

But, before absolutely committing ourselves to this novel doctrino, it might be wise to 
consider where it will lead us. Honorable Senators should be prepared to abide all the 
consequences that will flow from it. Now, in the free States, I learn, it is matter of 
universal acceptance, that slaves carried into jurisdictions (with the confent of their 
owners) where slavery is prohibited by law cannot be reclaimed, but become free; and I 
will not pretend to disguise that, in Louisiana heiself, adjudications have been had which 
give full sanction to that doctrine. Well, I have it from reliable authority that more 
than one hundred slaves, in the service of officers, quartermasters, sutlers, &c., accona- 
panied the armies of Generals Scott and Taylor in their invasion of Mexico; that there 
were thirty of these in the train of the South Carolina regiment alone; and, that even 
the gallant hero of Buena Vista, now the President of the United States, had two of hia 
own slaves in constant attendance upon him during the whole campaign. Now, if Mexico 
was a jurisdiction where slavery was prohibited ; if all these slaves were taken into that 



jurisdiction with the consent of their owners; and we give full scope to the doctrine just 
referred to, they all became free, and are entitled to their freedom now. This would 
undoubtedly have been so, had the slaves, with the same consent, been taken into any 
of the free States of the Union. Bui who believes that that effect has been wrought by 
their presci^ce and sojourn in Mexico? Who beheves that the brave old General would hold 
men in service and in sluv. bondage, too, who had ceased to be slaves by law? No one 
thinks so. But what prevented that result > Why, the suspetision of those laws, clearly, 
and the supremacy of the Com^titution of the United States (under the circumstances) 
over those laws, and through the protection it gave to the property of the owners in these 
slaves. I put it to the grave judgment of Senators to say, if General Taylor, with those 
slaves, instead of being in one of the political departments of Mexico, had been in either 
of the ceded Territories of California or New Mexico, at the close of the war, whether 
these slaves, though lawfully held in bondage upon Mexican territory, would have be- 
come free upon American territory, and by virlue alone of the restoration of peace > 

If the political law of the Mexican Constitution prohibiting slavery was revived by vir- 
tue of the treaty of peace, it was not the only political law of Mexico which was thus 
bf ought back to life and into function by that measuie. Kindred laws derived from kin- 
dred authority must have equal force in the same localities and jurisdictions ; and I pro- 
pose now to bring to the notice of the Senate some other political laws of Mexico, in 
active force and in full operation in these Territories when the war broke out, which, I 
must think, some of the honorable Senators who hear me would be most reluctant to 
admit had survived both our hostile occupancy and our possession uncler the treaty. 
Take an instance: At the opening of the war, the Mexican tariff laws absolutely pro- 
hibited, under heavy penalties, the importation of upwards of sixty articles of our home 
produce— sugar, rice, cotton, flour, &c. Now, during the war, the Executive of the 
Unitid States caused to be established and enforced in the several sea ports in Mexico 
that weie in our possession a tariff, laying and collecting a moderate revenue duty upon 
those very articles ; and this tariff, I believe, was continued in practical force in Califor- 
nia long after the peace, and up to the time the United States re\enue laws were extended 
to her and to the other ceded Territories. I do not enter at all upon the question, whether 
the executive tariff and its enforcement in California, after the treaty of peace, had or 
had not the sanction of the Constitution ; but I wish to take the judgment of the Senate 
upon the point whether, in legal contemplation, it was abrogated or not by the revival 
of the Mexican Tariff, with all its penalties and confiscations under the treaty of cession ^ 
If it was so revived, then all these penalties and confiscations should have inured to the 
Treasury of the United States ; and if they did, who can estimate the millions in value 
of the ships and cargoes forfeited ? If it was not so revived, it was not revived at all ; 
and the political provision prohibiting slavery most assuredly encountered a like fate. 

Sir, if the Mexican laws continue in force, there are other consequences equally im- 
portant and far rnorc obnoxious, to be realized. Those laws necessarily treat American 
citizens as Foreigners. While they are in force, an American could not be an alcalde, 
or magistrate, or have a right to vote; be an officer in the militia, or hold or exercise 
any office or franchise whatever. He might be compelled to give evidence against 
himself in criminal examinations, or be disallowed a trial by jury, even in a capital case! 
In religious matters, too, Americans migrating there would find themselves scarcely 
less aggrieved under those laws. Piolestants could not be permitted to erect Pro- 
testant churches or to attend Protestant worship, nolr when dead, be allowed the rites 
ef Christian sepulture ! Upon the numerous Catholic religious festivals, feast days, 
Protestants would be required to close their stores and shops, and to desist from all busi- 
ness, &c. If the great object of the Frcesoilers be, as they sometimes say, to gratify 
our Mexican fellow-citizens by securing them in their just rights and privileges, they 
may rest assured that these fellow-citizens will consider either far less interfered with by 
the introduction among them of African slaves than by the coming thither of Free soil 
Frotestants ! and if the Federal Constitution is to be regarded as the charter and mea- 
sure of our rights, there is quite as much authority for excluding from the ceded Terri- 
tories Free-soilers, with their Protestantism, as Southerners with Slaves ; that is to say, 
no authority at all. 

But, sir, those who maintain that the Mexican laws prohibiting African slavery still 
obtain in these Territories will have to encounter another startling consequence, and 
must rid themselves of it as best they may ; and that consequence is, that the same laws 



9 

which prohibit African slavery there, tolerate Mexican slavery ; and so the frcesoilers 
will have to make their choice between black slavery and white slavery ! The victims 
of Mexican peonage are t/ie slaves of debt ; and the dominion of the master is quite as 
absolute, and the prospect of the peoties quite as dreary and changeless, as those of the 
Africans in any of the slave States. 

Have honorable Senators contemplated all the revolting consequences which flow from 
the doctrine that the Mexican laws prohibiting African slavery are in force in these Ter- 
ritories ? If they be, by the very same implication, so are the laws regulating Mexican 
peonage ,- and honorable Senators must at once see it might be possible, as it would cer- 
tainly be lawful, that while an African would be instantly emancipated upon going there, 
and could not be redeemed to slavery, an American citizen might, through wa'nt and 
misfortune, become the peon of so vile a thing as a Mexican lepero ! The highest suc- 
cess, therefore, that our opponents can promise themselves in this memorable straggle is, 
to shield the African race from an enslavement and a doom from which they neither care 
nor strive to shield their aim. While African slavery can receive no accession, except 
from descent, they insist upon the existence and the ascendency of a foreign code of laws, 
which presents fresh and inexhaustible sources of supply in our own race, and makes 
poverty and want a lawful means and justification for enslaving Free bam White Men ' 

I had supposed, until very recently, that in all the civilized States of the w.vld, where 
the people were living under constitutional charters which they had themselves made, 
not a parallel was to be found to that system of servitude for misfortune which peonage 
presc^its. I was mistaken, sir. A parallel— more than a parallel— has existed for the 
past half-century, and, unrepealed and unmodified, exists in full force now, in one of 
the most enlightened and liberty-loving communities in all Christendom. I mark the in- 
terest and curiosity which this statement awakens ; and I think I can read upon Sena- 
tors hps the question : " In what corner of Europe does such a community abide?" 
Ah, not in Europe, sir ; not on the other side of the Atlantic, but on this ; not in the 
IJritish or Hispano American possessions, but our own ; not in the southern section of 
the Union, but in the northern,- not in a slave State, but in a free State ; and if further 
indicia are needed to mark the locality, let me say at once that I have reference to a 
community, which, (pi izmg its consistency as above all worth,) after casting its elect- 
electoral vote in favor of a southern slaveholder, for the high office of President of 
the United Sates, passed resolutions at the first session of its btate Legislature thereafter, 
denouncing slavery as a crime, and, not content with this, caused this foul and heinous 
charge and deliberate insult to be officially promulged by her Senators in the South's 
presence through her Senators upon this floor. I need say no more to point unerring- 
ly my reference to the slave-detesting and liberie/ and Union-loving State of Vermont ' 

I read from the organic law, and the first article in the first chapter of her State 
Constitution : 

Art. 1. All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, 
inherent, and unalienable rights ; among which are the enjoving and defendino- of Hfe 
and hberty, acquiring, possessing, and defending property, and pursuing and obtaining 
liappiness and safety. Therefore, no male person bom in this country, or brought from 
over sea, ought to be holden by law to serve any person as a servant, ,lave, or ''appren- 
tice, after he arrives at the age of twenty- one years, nor female, in like manner, apteh 
she arrives at the age of eighteen years, unless they are bound by their own consent af- 
ter they arrive at such age, oii ahe BOUKD BY LAW FOH THEPAYMKXT OP DEBTS 
DAMAGES, C0ST8, FINES, OR THE LIKE ! I ' 

Plainly then, all persons, mile or female, white or black, with or without their con- 
sent, are liable to be holden as slave, in Vermont, if within twenty-one and cic^hteen 
years of age respectively ; if with their consent, without any limitation at all, and may 
be sold at anij age as slaves '«for debts, dama^.s, costs, pines, and the like'" 
Yet with this organic sanction and authorization of white slavery, of Vermont peonao^e 
prefixed as the very frontispiece of her Constitution, she deliberately announces in h^ 
Legislature and proclaims in the Senate chamber of the Union, that Southern slavert/ 

IS a CRIME I ' -^ 

To my own apprehension, Mr. President, by far the most toilsome portions of this 
discussion might have been spared to the Senate, had honorable Senators contented 
themselves at the threshold, with weighing impartially the stubborn facts of recy/-^ which 



10 

tliis case presents. Senators have quoted the law of nations as decisive of the rights of 
a conquered people to retain certain portions of their laws until the nation subjugating 
them has substituted other laws in their place. Nobody disputes that; but Senators 
seem to have overlooked entirely that the law of nations never interposes its authorUy in 
regulating the rights and duties of nations, except upon matters about which the Treaties 
and (conventions of Nations are silent. On the other hand, the law of nations is silent 
whenever such Treaties or Conventions contain stipulations upon the subject-matter at is- 
sue; for, these stipulations must be and are the exact measure of the rights and privilegea 
yielded to and secured by the people who have been subdued. Clearly, then, the ftipu- 
lations of the Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo, contain the full guage of all the rights and 
privileges secured to the inhabitants of the ceded Territories. Let us, then, look into 
that Treaty, and see if there be any thing there which would deprive a Southern slave- 
holder from exercising such rights of property in such Territories as he might exercise 
under the Constitution of the United States any where out of these limits, and not with- 
in one of the free States, unless under a claim for the extradition of fugitives from service. 
I have that treaty in my hand; and I beg leave to refer to the ninth article of it, which j 
will now read to the Senate: 

Akt. IX. The Mexicans, who, in the Territories aforesaid, sTiall not preserve the 
character of citizens of the Mexican Republic conformably with what is stipulated in the 
preceding article, shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and admit- 
ted as soon as p; ssible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to ihe 
enjoyment *f all the rights of citizens of the United States. In the mean time, they 
shall be maintained and protected in the enjoyment of their liberty, their proptriy, and 
the civd rights now va'tcd in them accurding to the Mtxican lawn. With respect to 
political rifjhts, their condition shall be on an equality with that of the inhabitants of the 
other Territories, and at \en6t equally goud with that of the inhabitants of Louisiana and 
the Floridas, when these provinces, by transfer from the French Republic and the crown 
of Spain, became Territories of the United States, &c., (concluding with guaranties of 
all their religious rights, &c.) 

Thus it is seen that while the Treaty aims to define and regulate the rights under it of 
the inhaltitants of the ceded Territories, it will appear hereafter that this, the only clause 
which might have been construed as giving a surviving efl'ect to the laws of Mexico or 
the civil rights of these Mexicans, has been stricken out from the original treaty. But 
I am prepared to show that, even under the clause as it originally stood, the Mexican 
Americans acquired from it no just pretensions to the privilege now claimed from the 
United States in their name — a claim no less than this: That the Mexican laws, while 
conferring rights upon the Mexican residents] took them auay from AmtricjLns migra- 
ting there. This is obviau.slya gross distortion of both the spirit and letter of the clause. 
It means nothing of the sort. It leaves them their civil and religious rights, and nothing 
more. Even had the original article of the treaty remained unmodified, how would that 
prove that the permanent exclusion of slavery was one of the rights which it was the 
object of the treaty to secure to the inhabitants? The pretension is absurd. Further- 
more, what were the " political rights " spoken of in this Article and what was to be 
the measure of their enjoyment ? the same Article gives the answer : They were to be 
"eqttully good with that (fthe inhabitants of Louisana and the Floridas." Mexico 
was content with that. The United States was not. But suppose that guarantee to 
have been preserved to the inhabitants of these Territories, would that have excluded 
Southerners from migrating thither with their slaves ? Was slavery abolished or exclu- 
ded from Louisiana or Florida on their accession to the dominion of the United States ' 
None knew belter than Mexico, that it is was not so. None doubted less than Mexico, 
that the ceded Territories would be overrun with slaves. None struggled more earnest- 
ly than Mexico to prevent it ; but (as it will appear hereafter,) that struggle was without 
fruits, , it was in vain. • 

I demand of honorable Senators who occupy these strange positions, how the fact of a 
slaveholder migrating to one of these Territories with his slaves would interfere with the 
civil rights of the Mexicans residing there? If this Government were to atiempt to re- 
duce these Mexicans themselves to slavery, or even to force them to become slave- 
holders, that would be a palpable breach, not only of their civil riglit><, but also of 
their personal liberty. But if Mexicans cannot enjoy theik own civil rights, under the 



11 

treaty, without the total denial and destruction of the equal civil rii^hfs of American 
citizens, then the treaty is a flagrant breach of the Constitution of the United States, 
and void for the want of constitutional authority in the President and the Senate 
to have made and ratified it. But I have shown already, that no such absurdity 
or nullity taints or avoids the treaty of cession ; that the clause in the Constitu- 
tion of 1843, prohibiting slavery, like all other laws of conbtitutional authority, 
was a law classed by eVery publicist of reputation among the pnblic pnJiUcnl laws 
of the country ; and those publicits concur, without an t^xfeption, that such laws 
never survive, but are brought to an end, eo instaute, with a change of domin- 
ion. Besides, civil rights must first bo conferred or recognized by the cedin? govern- 
ment, before they can be protected by the general terms of a treaty of cession; and 
how the provisions of the Mexican constitution, fnking away from Mexican cith 



'zens 



a pre-exiiti>ig rii^kt to hold slaves, can be construed as conferring on them any civil 
rights, or any rights at all, is a problem too subtle and impalpable for the grar.p of any 
faculty of mine, and which I must leave to honorable Senators who are wiser than I am, 
to ponder on and solve. 

I know not if T can have the pardon of the Senate for having dwelt so long upon the 
nature and operation of the " civil rights" said to have been secured by the treaty to the 
resident Mexicans, when I knew all the time that the treaty, as ratified, neither men- 
tioned nor provided for any civil rights whatever. The only way I can explain or ex- 
cuse myself for thus discu.^sing matters not in curia is, that I but followed the Ipad of 
Senators, having far more experience than I in debate upon this point, and for rea- 
sons to me unknown, left out of view altogether the 9th article of the amended, and 
argued the matter upon the basis of the 9th article of the onVwfl/ treaty; and the issues 
and arguments based upon this assumption, thus laid before the country through the 
speeches of Senators, and through the public press, would have left my remaks void of 
application and point, and scracely intelligible, had Istrictly confined myself to the provi- 
sions of the anunded treaty. This will be seen at once by my calling the attention of the 
Senate to the 9th article of the amended treaty, just handed to me by my honorable friend, 
the Senator from Mississippi, (Mr. Davts,) with the same article of the original treaty, 
which I have already laid before the Senate. 

Article 9th of Amended Treaty. 

The Mexicans who, in the Territories aforesaid, shall not preserve the character of 
citizens of the Mexican Republic, conformably with what is stipulated in the preceding 
article, shall he incorporated into the Union of the United States, and bo admitted at the 
proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States' to the enjoyment of 
all the rights of citizens of the Uhited States, according to the principles of the Consti- 
tution, and, in the mean time, shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment 
of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion, without 
restriction. 

Now, in the corresponding sentence of the original treaty, touching the protection 
guarantied to them as to their existing rights, the language reads thus: "En el entre- 
tanto; eran mantenidos y protegidos en el goze de su libertad de su propriedad y de los 
derechns civiles, que hoy tienen segun las leyes Mexieanos;" which, anglicized, reads: 
" In the mean time, they shall be maintained and protected in the enjoyment of their 
liberty their property, and the evil rights now vested in them according to the Mexi- 
can laws." The important words, '^ and the civil rights unw vfst'd in them accord- 
in-r to the Merican laws" were stricken out from the original treaty, and have ceased 
either to devolve any duty upon the United States, or to confer or secure to the 
Mexican residents any privileges or immunities whatever in regard to them. All that 
is secured to them in the ratified treaty — all that the United States are bound for — is 
their maintenance and protection in the enjoyment of their liberty and property ,- and 
it would be difficult to conceive how the enjoyment by American citizens in the^Terri- 
tories of their hberfy and property would interfere with that of the Mexican residents, 
or be a breach of faith or of duty in regard to the protection secured to them in the treaty 
of cession. Surely Senators will not seriously maintain that the civil rights of liberty 
and property cannot be enjoyed by the latter but by abridging the liberty or aboli.shing 
the property of the former. And whatever may have been the other civil rights intended 
to be recured by the ninth article of the treaty, as it originally stood, and even admit- 



12 

ting that it was designed to cover and continue in force the /?(>//^<ca/ inhibition of slavery 
in the Mexican Constitution, still as those other "civil rights " were thereafter taken out of 
the treaty protection of the United States, through the omissions and substitutions of the 
amended ninth article, they ceased to have any operation at all. unless our opponents 
maintain that important provisions txdndtd from a treaty, designedly and expressly, 
have precisely the same effect as if they were included within it in so many words ; and- 
if they do, they are nojonger to be reasoned with. 

If any doubts remain upon the raiuds of honorable senators as to the clause of the con- 
stitution of 1843 having survived the cession of California and New Mexico, those doubts 
will be entirely removed from a bare inspection of the negotiations and the instructions 
of the Mexican government to the Mexican commissioners which preceded the treaty, 
and the amendments that were adopttd and rejected \n executive session in this very 
chamber, when they were under advisement for ratification. It will be remembered that 
the honorable senator from Kentucky, in the very able speech he delivered at an early 
period of the session in support of his original resolutions, read us, with his characteristic 
irapressiveness, an interesting extract from the confidential despat -h (No. 15) of Mr. 
Trist to the Department of State, dated Tacubaya, Mexico, b'eptember 4, 1817, minute- 
ly setting forth what had occurred in conference between the Mexican commissioners and 
himself upon this very question of the introduction or exclusion of slavery into or from 
the Territories to be ceded to the United folates. I agree with the honorable senator that 
this passage has an important bearing upon some of the issues he presented, and which 
are now under debate ; and I ask leave to refresh the memories of senators by calling their 
attention to that passage once more. In reference to this point of the conference, Mr. 
Trist says : 

" Our conversation upon this subject was perfectly frank, and no less friendly ; and 
the more effective upon their minds, inasmuch as I was enabled to say with perfect sin- 
cerity, that although their impressions respecting the practical effect of slavery as it ex- 
isted in the United States were, I had no doubt, entirely erroneous, yet. there icui- pro- 
bably no difference between my individual view,-' and sentiments on slavery, considered ' 
in i'tnelf, and those which they entertained. I concluded by assuring them that the 
meniiun of the subject in any treaty to which the United States were a party was an ab- 
solute impossibility ,- that no President of the United States would dare to present any 
such treaty to the Senate ; and that if it were in their power to offer me the whole terri- 
tory described in our projet, increased tenfold in value, and, in addition to that, covered 
a foot thick all over with pure gold, upon the siniile condition that slavery should be ex- 
cluded t'lertfrom, I could not entertain the offer for a moment, nor think even of com- 
municating it to Washington. The matter ended in their being fully satisfied that this 
topic was one not to be touched, and it was dropped with good feeling on both sides." 

This language is strong and full of meaning ; but, although Mr. Trist's conduct was 
subjected to strong criticisms, and much of it fell under censure, yet no one, as far as I 
know, ei'cr blamed him for his action on the subject of slavery. Sir, the Mexicans may 
be far behind the age in many branches of science, in the useful arts and inventions, and 
the mighty tactics of war. But in diplomacy they rival any of the master States of 
Christendom, and have taken their position amongst nations in the front rank. I do 
not mean at all that diplomatists are not to be found who wield and display a profounder 
and more finished statesmanship — minds of larger scope and fuller knowledge ; but in 
ready sagacity, unfailing acuteuess and far reaching dexterity, I doubt if Mexican diplo- 
matists are anywhere surpassed. Had there been the slightest color fur the interpreta- 
tion which our opponents give to the words " civil rights" in the 9th article, as it origi- 
nally stood, the Mexican commissioners would have descried it and seized ui)on it at 
once ; and the last thing they would have thought of would have been to risk a formal 
proposal on such a subject, when ihey well knew that a failure must necessarily and ab- 
solutj^y put an end to that interpretation of the 9th article, which, but for the rejected 
proposal, it might plausibly have borne. 

That these proposals of the Mexican commissioners to Mr. Trist, on the subject of the 
exclusion of slavery from the ceded Territories, were regarded by them as no light or 
trivial matter, but as an object of the highest moment and consequence, will be most ob- 
vious to Senators, if they will take the pains to consider the important document in 
Spanish which I hold in my hand, and which accompanied the treaty into the Senate. 
It purports to be the instructions from the Mexican government to the Mexican commis- 



18 

wioncrs, prescribing their active and passive duties in the approaching negotiation. With 
the leave of the Senate, I will proceed to read from the tule prefixed to these instructions; 

•• Puntos que deheran tratarse en las confcrencias con el comisionado de los Estados 
Unidos, y que dt-beran servir de bases a los de Mexico, propuestos al exmo. Sr. Pre- 
siJente por el Ministro de Relaciones, y aprobados por S. E. en junta de ministros." 

Which may be rendered thus : 

«' Points which must be treated of in the conferences with the United States commis- 
sioners, and must serve as the bases of those of Mexico, laid betore his Excellency the 
President by the Minister of Foreign Relations, and approved by his excellency in a 
Council of Ministers." 

Now, the 1 3th article of those instructions makes known, in unmistakable terms, the 
deliberate and anxious purpose of Mexico to secure the exclusion of slavery from the 
Territories : . 

13. Los Estados Unidos se comprometeran a no consentir la esclavitud en la parte 
del territorio que adquieran por el tratado. 

Which means: 

The United Slates shall bind themselves not to preinit that slavery be established in 
the territories ceded by the treaty. 

These instruction bear date Mexico, August 24, 1847, and at the foot bear the impo- 
sing names of Lopez de Santa Anna, T. R. Pacheco, N. Romeiio, Alcorta, and 
RoNDEiu) ; and the whole document attests the solemn earnestness of Mexico upon the 
subject referred to. 

One brief reference more to a memorable movement which took place in the United 
States Senate while the treaty was under advice for ratification, and I will not trouble the 
Senate a moment longer upon the vexed question, " Whether the clause in the Mexican 
Constitution abolishing slavery remains in force in the ceded territory, or was withdrawn, 
with all its other provisions, to give way to the jurisdiction and supremacy of our own '" 

Having established, I flatter myself, that in the same moment of the ratification of the 
treaty, when Mexico parted with the ownership and jurisdiction, the United States, and 
without the lapse of a single instant, acquired both — as the United States, it is conceded, 
held exclusive jurisdiction during the whole period of their hostile occupancy, it would 
be marvellous, indeed, if, by adding to their rights as invaders ihc'u nghXs as conquerors, 
and to these their rights as purchasers, they diminished the rights they had before ! 

At an executive session of the Senate of the United States, held March 8, 1848, the 
following memorable proceeding took place, as it stands recorded upon the journal of the 
Senate of that date : 

On motion of Mr. Baldwin, to insert the following words, to wit : 

"Provided there shall be 7ieither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the ierritoiiies 
hereby ceded, otherwise than in punishrneiit of crimes, whereof the party shall have 
been duly convicted." 

And it was determined in the negative — yeas 15, nays 38. 

Those who voted in the affirmative were — 

Messrs. Atherton, Baldwin, Clarke, Clayton, Corwin, Davis of Massachusetts, Day- 
ton, Dix, Greene, Hale, Miller, INiles, Phelp.s, Spruance, and Upham. 

Those who voted in the negative were — 

Messrs. Allen, Ashley, Atchison, Badger, Bagby, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Bradbury, 
Breese, Bright, Butler, Calhoun, Cameron, Cass, Crittenden, Davis of Mississippi, 
Dickinson, Douglas, Downs, Felch, Foote, Hannegan, Hunter, Johnson, of Maryland, 
Johnson, of Louisiana, Johnson, of Georgia, Lewis, Mangum, Moore, Pierce, Rusk, 
Sevier, t^turgeon, Turney, Underwood, and Yulee. 

From the rapid glance I have taken of the negotiation in Mexico, and the decisive in- 
instructioiis of the Mexican Government to the Mexican coninii-ssioners, it is clear that 
no amendment was made or could have been made to the original treaty so perfectly ac- 
ceptable as this to Mexico. This was well known to the Senate. No doubt could have 
rested ujinn the minds of Senators, that this amendment would not have perilled in 
the least the mtification of the treaty. No reasons, therefore, of this sort could have 
brought down so heavy a vote against the amendment. Only look at it : out of a Senate 



14 

of 60> it coulJ command but 15 votes ; precisely one fourth of the senators elect, and 
not a St-nator more ! And thus went down the IVilmot Proviso, in a struggle for the 
mastery atnong its friends. But time has developed that this was a sham fight, after 
all ; the object was to disarm the South, and lull her distrust, and she joined in the ac- 
quisition. But when the acquisition was made, back came the Proviso, ^alvani/ed into 
life with a new vigor and a bolder face. The seeming rupture exists no more. Itn 
friends rally fiercer and stronger than ever ; and although, waging war under conflicting 
devices, they differ in many points, they are unanimous in on( — in spoliating the 8outh 
of her constitutional right of expanding her limits and extending her dominion Some 
thereare who meet the responsibility manfully, and come boldly to the mark, with the VnU 
mot Proviso ever on their lips ; others who stoutly deny a power in Congress to pass the 
Wilmof Proviso, yet sit complacently by, and concede a power in Congress to prompt Cali- 
fortiia to pass the Proviso for it, and thus actually to dt legato to California powers it never 
possessed itself; for where is the difference, in effect, between authorizing California, in 
the first instance, to spread out the Wiimot Proviso overthe vastdomain of the Union on t!>e 
Pacific — from Oregon to Mexico, from the Sierra Nevada to the Colorado ; and when that 
high handed n)easure, which ought to pertain only as a muniment to sovereignty, is done 
without the least sanction on the part of Congress, if Congress ratifies the act by rereiving 
her into t!ic Union asa Sovereign J^'tate' Otiiers there are who, fearingto risk the introduc- 
tion of slavery into the ceded Territories, upon the issue involved in the question whether 
the Mexican Constitution .survived the cession within the American boundaries, are re- 
solved and prepared to secure its exclusion by the practical enforcement of the Wilmol 
Proviso, in withholding from the local legislature all power to afford it \.\\aX protection, in 
common wiih all other property, it is ju.'tly entitled to, and so absolutely needs; and, to 
insure that enforcement beyond the reach of chance or justice, by a reservation in Con- 
gress of a revisory and vetoing power to annul at pleasure all the enactments Vvhich ihc 
Territorial Legislature may pass I 

Why, then, was it, that so many of the Wiimot Provisoists joined the A nti-Provi?oist*; 
in voting it down ? But one answer can be given — the adoption of the amendmt nt would 
most undoubtedly have del(?ated the treaty. The ratification of a treaty requires that two' 
thirds of the Senators present shall vote in its favor; and in a Senate of fiO, with 30 mem- 
bers frotn the free States, and oO from the slave ."^tates, it would have been utterly ho{»c- 
less to have looked for the consent of 40, after it had been made so unacceptable and 
odious to southerners by the insertion of the Wiimot proviso. The ratification of the treaty 
immediately and absolutely depended upon the southern vote of the Senate ,- and not an 
inch of territory would have been acquired without it. This every Senator knew ; and 
tlie prompt and decisive rejection of Mr. Balhwi^'s amendment involved an implication, 
and indeed a promise, as binding in conscience and justice as a formal compact, that the 
Wiimot provi-o should never be applied to the ceded Territories while their territorial 
condition lasted. Sir, I would wish at all times, both from a sense of propriety and 
from choice, to keep within the bounds of parliamentary order and courtesy ; and I hope 
I am passing the limits of neither, when I declare that I cannot sec how honorable Sena- 
tors can reconc le to any just appreciation of national morality, the attempt which is here 
made to resuscitate the VVilmot proviso and introduce it afresh, |in the dangerous and de- 
luding form which it assumes in the bill, after it had been strangled beneath the pressure 
of the overwhelming numbers which rejected Mr. Baldwin's amendment, and thuB 
give it a place in the Treaty o/?cr the ratification which would have destioyed the Treaty if 
it had been put there before ! 

I will trespass but a brief moment longer upon the patience with which honorable Sen- 
ators have so kindly borne with mc, to take in a general way but a passing glance at the 
Report and accompanying bills presented ly the committee, and vvhich honorable Sena- 
tors, who doubtless, sec clearer and further than I do, have been pleased to announce a."? 
a compromise. Sir, I wish it was a compromise — a rfa/ compromise — containing »tu- 
/u«/ concessions — and AJuir compromise containing equivoknt concessions, (or nt least 
so regarded by the parties who propose, and by the parties who accept them ;) for then I 
would support it with all my heart. I am as sensible as any one that the country necde 
repose ; and I do not doubt but that the So\ith would go as far, and I am sure much 
further than the North, in making any sacrifice?; which would secure it upon terms which 
neither humiliated nor dishonored her. But, Mr. President, I must say, in all candor, 
that I do not see in these measures any such compromise, nor indeed any compromise at 



15 

ali. Concession*, and many of them I see, but all of them are concessions frona ihi 
South ; and this being so, where is the compromise ■ Will honorable Senators point 
out to rae a single concession from the North to the South which these bills contain ? I 
ask but for oxe. Sir, there is none. No ; not on-e. The characteristic features of alJ 
the measures before us are exaction? on the one hand and yieldings on the other. The 
South f^ives, the North fakes. In truth, unless it can be said that the when the North is 
content to take less than all, she concedes all that she spares from the spoliation, there 
is not a concession in the whole scheme to give evidence, I v^illnot say of her magna- 
nimity, but of her justice. 

The honorable Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clat) attaches so much weight to the 
conviction he is under that the clause in the Mexica Constitution prohibiting slavery re- 
mains in full force in the ceded Territories, that he declares, with thit directness and 
frankness characteristic of his bearing in the Senate and elsewhere, that were his con- 
viction otherwise, he would not have supported this section of the bill. On the othei 
hand the honorable Senator frjm Mississippi, (Mr. Fooie,) if I understood him aright, 
assigns as a reason why he supports the same section, the conviction he rests under that 
the prohibit'on was abrogated and annulled by the treaty of cession, ^ir, is not this a 
strange state of things i" — not, indeed, that Senators should support the same measure to 
attain the same result, and for different reasons — notatall; but that ihey should do so from 
opposing and antagonistic reasons ? Many other Senators doubtless hav'e ranged themselvee 
upon either side of the positions held by the Senators referred 'o. Should these measures 
ever mature into a law of the land, will it be conducive to its proper execution that its 
friends are not agreed as to the true interpretation of the most important and vital provisione 
of the bill ? The dilTerence of opinion which I have noticed is somewhat less alarming and 
injurious, I confess, inasmuch as the .'Senators come from the same section of the Union; 
but how wouhl it be if Senators from opposite sections held opposite opinions as to the true 
meaning of the same terms upon a most material point, in the most material issue that had 
been made ? Now, sir, I am quite apprehensive, as I have intimated already, that this is 
the case in reference to the very section under debate. Put the question to any of the north- 
ern Senators who favor the plan, and I venture the opinion that you will scarcely find 
any among them who does not concur fully with the Senator from Kentucky, that 
the Mexican laws survived the cession, and are now in force in the ceded Territo- 
ries ; that the introduction of slavery there is wholly prohibited, and who do not go 
further, and hold that no binding obligation rests upon the Senators from the 
Fr^e States to admit either of the Territories as a Free State into the Union. Sir, if 
such be the conflicting differences of opinion touching the import of the same language, 
in the same section, and between its own friends, who knows what interpretation it may 
bear among the masses of the people North, and West, and South? And does it be- 
come us as Senators to send forth to the people statutes, inl'olving the rights and powers 
of the two great sections of the country, the true meaning of which they will no 
more agree about than we ourselves do. Will the South, think you, be satisfied 
with such a piece of patch-work as this' — with every point she contended for, sur- 
rendered and lost to her; with every claim she presented, disallowed; stripped of every 
acre of the ceded territory, of her pro-slavery rights in the District, forts, &c; with her 
rights to the extradition of fugitives from labor, clogged and obstructed, gaining nothing 
and losing all? I repeat it, again, .sir, will the South be satisfied with this? It needs 
no Seer to answer for her: Nkvkr^ Why, if such an adju-tment as this would have 
contented her; what possible, plea can be offered to shield her Senators and Representative.? 
in Congress from the responsibility they have incurred in obstructing the public business, 
at a great waste of the public treasure, in contesting every issue which this plan deter- 
mines forever against her ? Why, sir, if the South was to be satisfied with this, all of 
us know that there has not been a single week of the whole session when this plan could 
not have been carried through in both houses triumpb.antly, had the South been united 
in its support ; and we know quite as well that until very recently its main features wore 
repudiated by southerners everywhere in and out of Congress! What fresh merits it has 
acquired, what new advantages it possesses, that now recommend it to honorable Senators 
who once spurned its provisions with bitterness and denunciation, I see not and I know 
not. If my Honorable friends who have so unexpectedly parted comjiany with me on 
these issues, shall overthrow the able arguments Ihey used in convincing mk that the 
position I at present occupy, was the only sound Southern and Consii/ulionul position, 



16 

is untenable, 1 may think of abandoning it. I do not sat that it is not in their 
power to overthrow their^own arguments, but I humbly confess what I fully know, — that 
it is not in rnine ! 

My feeble health does not ndmit of my pursuing the subject further. Exhausted my- 
self, without having by any means exhausted my materials, I shall avail myself of a 
usage, made known to me by honorable Senators, of making free use of them in re\'ising 
what I have said. , 

It is deeply .painful to me, Mr. President, to part on such an issue with any of my 
southern friends. .'It shall not be my fault, sir, if such modifications are not introduced 
into the plan of the committee as will enable me conscientiously to give it my support. 
Should I fail in my wishes, no course is left me but to stand where I am. I cannot support 
this ominous measure as it is, and have the approbation of my constituents. I cannot sup- 
port it as it is, and have my own. 

I am fully alive to all the responsibilties which surround me and weigh me down. 
I realize fully the mighty stake which Louisiana and the whole South have in thorough 
conciliation ; but I will not seem to be contented with terras which, under the name of 
compromise, take all and yield nothing. I cannot seem to approve, and still less can I 
give my public assent to that which I think is neither just, fair, or kind. If we are to 
be crushed, let us not, at least, lose our. self-respect. Brave men, struggling for their 
rights, may be stricken down in the strife; but, even when all is lost, a manly resignation 
and gallant bearing may impart a dignity to misfortune which will command the respect 
even of an enemy, while the vain-glorious boasting of pretenders, over achievementa 
wrought where all has been disaster, brings upon them his silent pity and deliberate con- 
tempt . 



W46 



i^^^^. 














•• %,-i^ '*' 



'j^'i 






v-o^ 







"oV 



^°-v.. 







m 










^oK 











O,. **.,.•' aO 




0° .'^'ll' °o 














>^^-<^, 



'^i% 



"'■s- S"^ 



9' ., 






o. 



',^^'^. •" 






i::^ o 



'' ♦ » s < ' 






^^"^. ^ 



"^^0^ 

.^^°- 






. '■ o * o ' .'i)' 



o.. 



^^-^^^ 









< 



■^. 



"(J « » ' 



.4^°^ 








\'^^ 








.o „. 




^^ / °-._, '-m^ ^ 



\ >Jfi- A, 



^ .■■■:• 



V-^' 









't-- . 






n ■ r. ■: ' '■' 



.v^^ 



W 






'^O^ 
^*^^<<. 




'%r<^'' ^^: 



.V. .-J^'' 




^K 



-^o^' 



